I used to teach English. I'm a grammar nerd. I have a great vocabulary. I'm a good speller. I'm familiar with all the literary devices. I know how to tell a story.

So why do I need an editor?

Because the one thing I'm not is impartial. I am too invested in the project to be objective. I can't see the forest for the trees. I may execute each part perfectly, (or maybe not!) but that doesn't mean the pieces work when they come together.

Enter the editor ... well, the main editor ... the overseer of all editors if you like. This is the person the writer has direct contact with. (I know prepositions don't belong at the end of sentences, but this is a casual missive and times change, so I'm suspending my Diane Chambers' need for correctness, though my OCD tendencies aren't happy about it.)

As usual, I digress.

Editors help writers come back down to earth and finish the job they thought they'd already aced.

The first editor the writer crosses paths with is the acquisitions editor. This is the person who decides if the publishing house will contract the book. If it's a 'no', your editing journey is over before it begins. But if you sign a contract, you've just begun. Editors often wear more than one hat -- especially at small publishing houses, so the acquisitions editor may turn out to be the developmental editor too. 

The most challenging and most important edit is the substantive one. This is an exploration of the story as a whole -- it's deficiencies, it's possibilities, issues of clarity and depth. It's where the editor points out holes in the plot, shows character inconsistencies, and hints at potential for development. 

This is the low point for a writer. When you'd submitted your novel, you were sure this was the best thing you'd ever written, and suddenly the rug has been pulled out from under you. This is not the brilliant work you had imagined. And now you have to rethink things and rewrite. It's a kick in the gut.

After a few books, you bear up better. Experience shows you that taking a step back and breathing into a paper bag will keep you from using every curse word in your repertoire and hiding in a cupboard for the rest of your life. ** Word to the wise -- don't respond to your editor until you've had a chance to sleep on the feedback for several days.

And this is the part that separates great editors from the rest. In medicine, you would call it bedside manner. I don't know if there is a term for it in writing, but good editors understand and appreciate that writers are initially devastated by editors' observations and suggestions and as a result, editors apply huge doses of patience and hand-holding when responding to writers' concerns.

Thankfully, I have had more wonderful editors than awful ones. And after 30 books, I know I should be open to  editors' observations and suggestions. That is not to say that I should accept their word as gospel, but that I should consider their take on things with an open mind. It's not easy, but experience has taught me it's the wise thing to do. My personal measuring stick is the question: "Will this change make the book better or just different?"  Different doesn't cut it, but better wins every time. And I have to say that I can't think of a single occasion when the story didn't read better after the substantive edit.

After that comes the line edit. That again is between the writer and the main editor and concerns -- not so much what is said -- but the way in which things are said. After that comes the copy edit. This is a nit-picky edit mostly about house style, continuity, consistency, spelling, etc. After that comes the page proofs. If the book deals with history or something based in fact, the book may also be vetted by an expert in the field.

Each of these edits -- though they may involve copy editors, proofreaders, and professional experts, always include the main editor and the writer.

So, though it is the author's name that appears on the cover of the book, it should be noted that no book gets to the top without great editors.

We writers thank you.

• Editors generally earn more money than writers. The average annual income for an editor in Canada is $56,000. (Guess where that leaves writers.)

• Large established publishing houses are more likely to have a permanent editorial staff, while smaller publishers tend to use freelancers.

• In 1970 Margaret Atwood worked as an editor for House of Anansi. Other writers such as Toni Morrison (Beloved), David Evershoff (The Danish Girl), and David Levithan (Boy Meets Boy) are or have been editors. 
  
  

During my 25 years as a published author, I've been edited many times. I've liked and respected most of my editors -- some not so much. But the positive associations have had great impact on the books we created as well as on my writing in general.

Charis Wahl -- was my very first editor. I learned so much about writing from her and I have carried those lessons with me throughout my career. She generously helped me with other projects after that first book -- out of the goodness of her heart. I shall be forever grateful.

Susan Musgrave -- edited my second book. She was a strange bird (the woman had tiny plastic toys glued over her entire car), but an off-hand comment she made about the ending of the book -- "It needs to be more macabre," was all I needed to create an intriguing twist.

Rod MacIntyre -- edited Return to Bone Tree Hill, which went on to be nominated for numerous awards, including the esteemed Sheila Egoff Award. He encouraged me to include a psychological aspect to the protagonist's story which added depth to the novel.

Melanie Jeffs -- Developing credible characters has always been the most important part of writing to me. Melanie has taught me how to add depth to my characters by giving them a backstory, even if that story never appears on the page. Having it provides the characters with credible motivation for their actions.

• I just completed the line edits for The Sorcerer's Revenge. Things are moving right along.

• Next on the to-do list is the map.